Texas Rangers infield defense

by a bebop a rebop on May 9, 2007 9:24 AM CDT Comment 7 comments

The Hardball Times has an article up on a simple way to look at infield defense: taking the play-by-play data from mlb.com, seeing how many ground balls are fielded on each slice of the field, and then comparing this to each team's actual number of ground balls fielded.

For the Rangers, there is an interesting result. Overall, we were 12 plays below average on the year, which is poor but not terrible. However, Young and Kinsler fielded almost exactly the number of balls you'd expect them to. Blalock and Teixeira were both below average in their areas.

Obviously, this isn't what we expect, given specifically what we know of Teixeira and Young's respective range.

Two things which could have caused this: the data is not adjusted for handedness of pitchers or batters, or the ground-ball tendencies of the staffs. Are the Rangers unusual in either of these departments? Or are there other reasons why the data would give this result?

Here's is a pdf with all of the infield defense graphs on it, which is where you can see the Rangers' data.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

what do we know about Young's range?

Other than subjective observations? Or the ranting, irrational criticism from Jeff and others at Lookout Landing?

Objectively speaking, his RF so far this year is 4.75; last year it was 4.85 and the year before 4.46.

This year the average RF for ML shortstops is 4.45, the median 4.48.

In my own subjective opinion, his range this year has been pretty good. It's his footwork, backhand glove and ball handling that has caused errors. He has four so far this year, with a fielding pct of .972. Not great but not terrible ... the average for all ML shortstops this year is 0.968, the median 0.965.

Prior to 2006 you could make legitimate criticism that Young's range sucked. I think, and the numbers back it up, that Young heard that criticism, took it to heart, worked on it and got better. The Hardball Times results provide further support. Michael Young is at least an average, and probably better than ML average defensive shortstop.

And thanks for posting this -- great data.

by LukeR on May 9, 2007 10:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Prepare to get pounced on

By the Young-haters and their minions...

Dreamcatchers work...if your dream is to be a douchebag...

by Brian Thomas on May 9, 2007 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

RF and FP have known problems that make their numbers a problem.

Guys with less range, and sure hands can have higher FPs than guys with more range who would make more plays, but boot balls at the extreme of their range.

Range Factors are a particularly bad stat. RF doesnt measure range at all, it is just Putouts and Assists per 9 Innings played. Therefore, mediocre infielders who play behind ground ball pitchers can have better RFs than superior defensive IFs who play behind fly ball pitchers.

Zone Ratings also have their issues, but are probably better than RF or FP. Michael Young has a .785 which puts him towards the bottom. Last year he was middle of the pack.

Using stats to compare defenses is a problem because there are really no good stats to capture the ranginess and positioning of fielders at the moment.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place,"--ret Lt. Gen. Odom

by DJCahill on May 9, 2007 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last year

Young was in the middle of the pack (.836) in ZR, and near the top in RF. His fielding percentage was in the top 5.

In 2005 he was near the bottom (.808) in ZR, and in the middle of pack in fielding pct and RF.

Granted that fielding stats are fuzzier than most, but there did seem to be a solid improvement in Young's defense last year. Both subjectively and objectively.

I think it's too early to say whether that improvement has carried over to this year.

by LukeR on May 9, 2007 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Range Factor

Like RBIs, it is very team-dependent.

Adam Everett, playing behind a flyball staff that strikes out a lot of hitters, is going to probably have a lower range factor than Derek Jeter would have playing behind a group of Brandon Webbs, Kam Loes and Derek Lowes.

by Adam J. Morris on May 9, 2007 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't use this article to evaluate defense

and the writer even cautions us not to attempt to do so:

I want to make clear that this is not a defensive evaluation system. It only takes into account one aspect of ground balls, namely, where they are hit. There are other variables that likely have an effect on the ability of a player to turn a ground ball into an out: speed of the batted ball is clearly one such variable. The number of outs and possible runners on the bases affect positioning and hence the out conversion rate. Other effects may also be important: the ballpark, handedness of batter or pitcher, etc. I've ignored all those things, because I want to see the "raw" data first, in its natural purity, before it gets gussied up with adjustments.

Taking this article, which is really just a starting point, and using to rank defenses is like not using ballpark factors to evaluate an offense.

by t ball on May 9, 2007 11:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

All true

The thing I was really interested in here was Teixeira. What about the Rangers' pitching staff make-up would cause him to make fewer plays than average, given that his skill around the bag is pretty obvious?

by a bebop a rebop on May 10, 2007 11:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs